Those who dislike long posts (14 kB), academic references, self
references, cross-posting, or have no interest in "Comprehensive
School Reform Models" are urged to immediately hit the DELETE button.
And if you reply PLEASE DON'T HIT THE REPLY BUTTON unless you prune
the copy of this post that may appear in your reply down to a few
relevant lines, otherwise the entire already archived post may be
needlessly resent to subscribers.
In his terse AERA-C post of 29 Nov 2005 19:10:20-0500 titled "Study
Rates 22 Widely Used Comprehensive School Reform Models," Steve
Bissonnette wrote:
"The American Institutes for Research (AIR) have released a report
evaluating the effectiveness of 22 comprehensive school reform
models. Direct Instruction was one of the two highest-rated models
examined."
The news report reads, in part [bracketed by lines "AIR-AIR-AIR-. .
."; inserts by Hake at ". . .[insert]. . ."; my CAPS]:
************************************************
AIR-AIR-AIR-AIR-AIR-AIR-AIR-AIR-AIR-AIR-AIR-AIR
The American Institutes for Research (AIR) report was produced by
AIR's Comprehensive School Reform Quality (CSRQ) Center, a multi-year
project FUNDED BY A GRANT FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. The
"CSRQ Center Report on Elementary School CSR Models" builds on AIR's
pioneering work in conducting consumer-friendly research reviews,
including "An Educators' Guide to Schoolwide Reform" issued in 1999,
and its current work for the What Works Clearinghouse . .
.[<http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/>]. . .
"Our purpose in providing ratings is not to pick winners and losers
but rather to clarify options for decision-makers," said Steve
Fleischman. . .[for a sample of Fleischman's work see e.g.,
Fleischman (undated)]. . . , a managing director for AIR who oversaw
the study. "This report is being issued in the hopes that the
information and analysis it provides contributes to making research
relevant in improving education."
Collectively, the reform models reviewed serve thousands of mostly
high-poverty, low-performing schools nationwide. The review includes
such well known models as Success for All, Accelerated Schools, Core
Knowledge, America's Choice, Direct Instruction, School Renaissance,
and the School Development Program.
AIR researchers conducted extensive reviews of about 800 studies and
other publicly available information to rate the models in five
categories of quality and effectiveness, including their ability to
improve student achievement and to provide support to schools that
allowed the model to be fully implemented. The CSRQ CENTER REVIEW
FRAMEWORK was developed in consultation with an Advisory Group
composed of leading education experts and researchers. .
.[unspecified but probably those listed at
<http://www.csrq.org/CSRAdvisors.asp> - note the many academic
psychologists and education specialists !!]. . . , and IS CLOSELY
ALIGNED WITH THE REQUIREMENT FOR SCIENTIFICALLY BASED EVIDENCE THAT
IS PART OF THE FEDERAL NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT. . . [for
"scientifically-based evidence" read "randomized control trials"]. .
..
Of the 22 reform models examined, Direct Instruction (Full Immersion
Model), based in Eugene, Ore.. . .[<http://www.nifdi.org/>]. . ., and
Success for All. . .[<http://www.successforall.net/>]. . ., located
in Baltimore, Md., received a "moderately strong" rating in "Category
1: Evidence of Positive Effects on Student Achievement."
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Consumers can visit the CSRQ Center's Web site
<http://www.csrq.org/reports.asp> to download the entire report,
individual model profiles, or to search the online database to
perform side-by-side comparisons of the models reviewed by the CSRQ
Center.
ABOUT CSRQ CENTER
The Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center (CSRQ Center
www.csrq.org . . .[better hot linked as <http://www.csrq.org>]. . .
The Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center (CSRQ Center
www.csrq.org . . .[better hot linked as
<http://www. www.csrq.org>]. . . IS FUNDED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION'S OFFICE OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, through a
Comprehensive School Reform Quality Initiative Grant (S222B030012), ,
, and is operated by the American Institutes for Research (AIR,
www.air.org . . .[better hot linked as <http://www.air.org >]. . .
ABOUT AIR
The American Institutes for Research (AIR) is an independent,
not-for-profit organization that conducts behavioral and social
science research on important social issues and delivers technical
assistance both domestically and internationally in the areas of
health, education, and workforce productivity.
AIR-AIR-AIR-AIR-AIR-AIR-AIR-AIR-AIR-AIR-AIR-AIR
************************************************
In my opinion the AIR (2005) report is yet further reason to fear
that the U.S. Dept. of Education's direct instruction juggernaut,
fueled in part by an **unscientific** allegiance to randomized
control trials as the gold standard of educational research (see
signature quote), will eviscerate effective K-12 guided inquiry-based
science education in the U.S. [see e.g., Hake (2004, 2005a,b,c)].
BTW, "guided inquiry-based" does NOT mean the seldom used boogeyman
"pure discovery learning" researched by the widely misinterpreted
Klahr & Nigem (2004).
"In some quarters, particularly medical ones, the randomized
experiment is considered the causal 'gold standard.' It is clearly
not that in educational contexts, given the difficulties with
implementing and maintaining randomly created groups, with the
sometimes incomplete implementation of treatment particulars, with
the borrowing of some treatment particulars by control group units,
and with the limitations to external validity that often follow from
how the random assignment is achieved.
Cook & Payne (2002)
Hake, R.R. 2005a. "Will Evidence and Logic Reform Education? (was
California standards test in physics)," online at
<http://lists.nau.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0502&L=phys-l&P=R1541>. Post
of 3 Feb 2005 11:29:26-0800 to AERA-D, AERA-H, AERA-K, AERA-L,
AP-Physics, ASSESS, Chemed-L, EvalTalk, Math-Learn, Phys-L, Physhare,
POD.
Hake, R.R. 2005c. "Seven Reasons Why The NCLB Might Promote Direct
Instruction of Science in the U.S. and One Reason Why It Might Not,"
online at
<http://lists.nau.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0504&L=phys-l&F=&S=&P=1107>.
Post of 4 Apr 2005 15:03:45-0700 to AERA-C, AERA-D, AERA-G, AERA-H,
AERA-J, AERA-K, AERA-L, AP-Physics, ASSESS, Biopi-L, Chemed-L,
EvalTalk, Math-Learn, Phys-L, Physhare, POD, and STLHE-L.
Klahr, D, & M. Nigam. 2004. "The equivalence of learning paths in
early science instruction: effects of direct instruction and
discovery learning" (2004)
<http://www.psy.cmu.edu/faculty/klahr/papers.html>.
Mosteller, F. & R. Boruch, eds. 2002. "Evidence Matters: Randomized
Trials in Education Research". Brookings Institution.
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l